In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency weighed in and expressed concerns about climate change and health risks to people. Specifically, the EPA is concerned that “the project could result in degradation of natural resources,” is not likely to “provide for natural regeneration,” and is predicated on “extensive use of herbicides” and “risks posed to human health and the environment from that use.”

They are also concerned about the “potential impacts of climate change on the Project area,” including “the length and severity of the fire season,” “stressed water supplies,” and “the rate and distribution of harmful timber insects and diseases.” In addition, the EPA is concerned about:

The inadequate protection of the local water supply from herbicides

The inadequate protection of animals from herbicides

The inadequate protection of people from herbicides and the failure to monitor people after application UC Berkeley potentially using fire abatement as a ruse to cut down trees for development

That what the project partners claim are “mitigation” measures are not; they are simply required by law. For example, following a label on an herbicide is not “mitigation.”

Please note: while the final EIS added some additional warnings about herbicides, the underlying issues of concern to the E.P.A. remain. The extensive use of herbicides, the impact to climate change, the health risks to children, workers, residents, and animals, and the degradation of natural resources has not changed. In fact, the EPA report did not go far enough noting that they did not believe glyphosate was cancerous which they are now reevaluating in light of the fact that the World Health Organization and the State of California now indicate that is is.